Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add jstoup111/ai-conductor --skill build-review-securitygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jstoup111/ai-conductorWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/build-review-security)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/build-review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/build-review-security/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/build-review-security"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/jstoup111/ai-conductor/build-review-security.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00019 | $0.01041 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00416 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00208 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00104 |
Grade A, and why
build-review-security scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Judge the Security concern for one engine-managed build_review rubric branch. This is a
judgement-only contract: the engine owns scope selection, evidence assembly, result validation,
finding identity, the stamped result envelope, and the outer gate verdict.
Input projection (v3)
Use only the supplied projection version v3. Its closed input contains the lap ID, snapshot
digest, content digest, merge base, head SHA, and the whole changed diff by reference
(changedFiles: each changed path, change kind, and hunk ranges).
The session runs inside the feature worktree. The diff content is not embedded: read referenced
files and obtain any per-path diff with git diff <mergeBase>..HEAD -- <path> (or inspect base
content with git show <mergeBase>:<path>). Those worktree reads are part of this closed input.
Do not infer facts from a maker transcript, task-status narrative, a prior review, or state outside
this projection and its referenced content.
Judge only the reviewScope delta hunks. Treat changedFiles as context only. If that review
identifies a finding outside the delta, set causeHunk to the delta hunk that causes it.
Judgement
Judge whether the changed diff introduces a concrete, exploitable defect in the closed vocabulary
below. Report one finding per independent defect. Anchor every finding to the changed hunk that
introduces the exposure, never to an unchanged sink; cite unchanged sinks only in
evidenceLocations. A concern without an introducing hunk is not a finding for this rubric.
committed-secret— a changed production path commits a credential that has a credible live credential shape and can authenticate or authorize access. Non-finding: an obviously fake, redacted, documented, or test-only fixture credential is not a committed secret.injection— a changed hunk sends untrusted input into a shell, SQL, interpreter, template, or equivalent execution sink without safe parameterization or escaping. Non-finding: a parameterized query or fixed command whose arguments never contain attacker-controlled input is not injection.broken-access-control— a changed hunk removes, bypasses, or weakens an authorization check so an otherwise protected action can be reached. Non-finding: a relocated check that still protects the same action, or an endpoint intentionally public by its established contract, is not broken access control.path-traversal— a changed hunk derives a filesystem path from untrusted input without containment enforcement. Non-finding: a normalized path checked against an allowed root, or a fixed application-owned path, is not path traversal.unsafe-deserialization— a changed hunk deserializes untrusted data with a mechanism that can construct executable or unsafe object state. Non-finding: parsing data with a constrained, non-executing parser and validating its resulting schema is not unsafe deserialization.cryptographic-failure— a changed hunk introduces broken cryptographic use, such as a predictable secret, obsolete primitive for a security decision, or disabled verification. Non-finding: ordinary non-security hashing, or an established modern primitive used with its required verification, is not a cryptographic failure.security-misconfiguration— a changed hunk enables an insecure production-facing setting, exposure, or default with concrete security impact. Non-finding: an explicitly local, test-only, or development setting that cannot reach a production boundary is not a security misconfiguration.authentication-failure— a changed hunk accepts an identity without required credential, session, token, or signature validation. Non-finding: a failed-login response, a deliberate anonymous route, or validation preserved in an invoked boundary is not an authentication failure.integrity-failure— a changed hunk accepts security-sensitive data or artifacts without a required integrity check, allowing tampering to affect a decision. Non-finding: data with no integrity requirement, or data verified before use by the changed flow, is not an integrity failure.ssrf— a changed hunk sends request-controlled network destinations without an allow-list or equivalent boundary that prevents access to internal or unintended hosts. Non-finding: a fixed destination, or a request URL constrained to an approved host set before dispatch, is not SSRF.
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday Changed · -4 lines ddc78ed5f79c
- 2d ago Changed · +3 lines a4ec819be323
- 6d ago Changed · +4 lines a5af4e827980
- 1mo ago Changed · -58 lines 3debb6a9d40e
- 1mo ago First seen · 132 lines · 19 tokens per session scan A 915b034a0def
build-review-security is a skill published in the GitHub repository jstoup111/ai-conductor (7 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 19 tokens to every session and 1,041 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-19.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…